The McCain campaign’s $42,000 lie

The McCain campaign has unveiled two ads in four days, both with the same false claim. The ad from late last week insisted that Barack Obama “voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.” Yesterday, McCain’s campaign argued that one of the “perks” of joining the Obama “fan club” is “a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year.”

The McCain campaign, as it surely knows, is blatantly lying. But as long as McCain’s gang feels compelled to keep repeating the lie, we might as well go to the trouble of explaining why it’s wrong.

Oddly enough, it was none other than Fox News’ Chris Wallace, interviewing McCain campaign manager Rick Davis on Sunday, who helped expose the charade.

NARRATOR: Life in the spotlight must be grand. But for the rest of us, times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Mr. Davis, especially that last sentence, isn’t that misleading?

DAVIS: Nothing misleading about it. Barack Obama voted for a budget resolution that would have increased taxes on people, families, making $42,000. What’s misleading about that?

WALLACE: Well, in fact, it only would be single people making $42,000. It would be families making over $60,000. But Obama — as you say, he voted for a non-binding budget resolution that overall talked about doing away with the Bush tax cuts.

In fact, he says, that’s not his tax plan, that he supports a middle-class tax cut. And I want to put something up on the screen. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center says someone making $37,000 a year under Obama’s plan would get a tax cut of $892. Under McCain’s plan, they get a tax cut of $113.

The point, obviously, is to give voters the impression that if Obama’s elected, anyone who makes more than $42,000 — up until fairly recently, the McCain campaign had said $32,000 — should expect a tax increase.

But there’s that pesky reality. Obama didn’t vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000, it’s not part of his economic plan, and he would actually offer a bigger tax break to the middle class than McCain would.

Not that reality matters, of course, I just like to set the record straight.

It’s generally hit or miss, but FactCheck.org got this one right.

The measure Obama supported contained a provision – which is not part of his current tax proposals – that would have increased the rate paid by those who have taxable income high enough to fall into the 25 percent tax bracket. The 25 percent rate would have increased to 28 percent, as it was before the Bush tax cuts. The effect would have been to increase taxes for a single taxpayer with as little as $32,550 in taxable income in 2008, after all deductions and exclusions from total annual earnings.

But that works out to be $41,500 a year in total income for a single taxpayer with no dependents who takes the standard deduction and exemption allowed by the tax code. So it’s true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 this year would see an income tax increase – of $15. That assumes the provision Obama voted for had been enacted and assumes further that the taxpayer did not qualify for more than the standard deduction.

But the McCain ad misleads with a strong visual message. The $42,000 claim is true for a lone taxpayer, but it is not true for the woman who is pictured in the ad while the announcer is speaking. She’s reading to two small children, apparently her own. If she is supposed to be a single mother of two, then she would be able to make as much as $62,150 in total income in 2008 without being affected by the measure Obama once supported. She would file as a “head of household” with more generous tax brackets and standard deductions than for a single filer, and she would also qualify for exemptions for herself and her two children. (She would also qualify for a $1,000 credit for each child, since they both are obviously under 17, but this would be true whether or not the 25 percent bracket had been increased to 28 percent.)

Furthermore, if viewers are to believe that the woman in McCain’s ad is married and files taxes jointly with her husband, the couple could make as much as $90,000 this year without being affected. And anyway, as noted earlier, Obama isn’t proposing to implement any such increase in the 25 percent bracket. […]

The TV ad also says that Obama “promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.” This statement is simply not true for the vast majority of viewers who will see it. Obama

koupit-pilulky.com

, in fact, promises to deliver a $1,000 tax cut for families making up to $150,000 a year, and he says he would increase income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and taxes on dividends only for those with family incomes over $250,000 a year, or for single taxpayers making over $200,000.

Now you know. Tell your friends.

McCain’s campaign argued that one of the “perks” of joining the Obama “fan club” is “a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year.”

At least that was a falsifiable claim. The only other indications that the “fan club” ad was anti-Obama was the assertion that he’s inexperienced/unfit to lead (basically the same complaint stated twice). Which is an opinion McCain is entitled to hold, but simply repeating it doesn’t convince me.

  • “Now you know. Tell your friends.”

    My friends already know. It’s up to the MSM to do that and for Obama to come out with an add that calls Mccain a liar. Just a simple little 5 second add that states that fact.

    Camera pans-in to a middle-aged mom with two kids. She’s watching a TV that’s running McAce’s lie ad. She turns to the camera and says: Too bad John Mccain is a liar. I thought better of him in 2000. I wonder what happened”

    Camera pans back to the ad. fades…

  • This is a tangential point, but I need to get it off my chest: I’m getting tired of the way that ALL politicians spout rhetoric about helping out *families* at the expense of everyone else. I’m single, and I’d like to think I matter in this country as well. I have to account for all of my household expenses – I don’t get to share them with a spouse. The biggest chunk of these so-called middle class tax cuts proposed by both parties are tax credits for having children. That’s nice and all, but it doesn’t do me any good, and there are a lot of studies that show that single people subsidize families in other ways.

    Sorry, guess I’m just feeling grouchy today.

    Obama ’08!

  • I was wondering how exactly the McC*nt’s ad was a lie.

    Thank you Steve, FactCheck and Chris Wallace for explaining it.

  • Time to find every tax increase McCain ever supported in any way shape or form, and beat him over the head with them. I don’t care if he supports them any more or not, he might flipflop back to the other side, who knows?

    No. Mercy.

  • Menthol, quit bragging!

    The word “family” has a slew of extra meanings, when uttered during a campaign. When it’s spoken by republicans it’s meant to denote: Christians; dear, sweet, cherubic little children who go to Sunday school and are at that very moment kneeling in prayer; non-gays; people who work hard, own guns, and hate gays; white people; people who believe Christianity is the American religion and that English is our only language; people who require SUVs; troop-supporters; people depicted in slow-motion during country music videos.

    When it’s said by a democrat it means: groups of people at coffee shops; NPR supporters; couples of mixed race or similar gender; union members; farmers; voters; people shown in slow-motion in a U2 video; all non-republicans.

    The lines between single republicans and democrats is pretty clear, so they don’t get a lot of attention. It’s all about the miles per gallon of your vehicle. Less than 20 mpg means you’re voting for McCain. 20 mpg or more and you’re in Obama’s bag. Granted, you could ride a moped that runs on butter, but if it has a NASCAR sticker on it, you’re for McCain.

  • Look, facts be damned, the bottom line is that Obama is having to set the record straight. That means he’s having to answer the false charges. Case in point, this post.

    Anytime you’re answering a charge, you’re on the defensive.

    Anytime you’re on the defensive, you’re losing the narrative.

    Lose the narrative and let your opponent define who you are and what you stand for, you’ll lose the election.

    Modus ponens….

  • Good for McCain taking it to the street level. Isn’t this what politics is all about? Accusations and counter accusations? The cycle goes on-and-on in politics and these two are no different.

    Oh wait, Obama is above all that. He’s a new breed of politcian right? He’s beyond these petty attacks. His change will change all politics. There’ll be a new era in world history, the clouds will scatter and a bright shining light will shine down on us compelling us to hope and change, and change our hope.

    Nothing is stopping Obama from countering the ad. Why doesn’t he do that? Why doesn’t he explain that he’ll only raise taxes on the rich and that won’t affect middle-class families at all, because, after all, don’t the rich own businesses that hire middle-class people. So when the rich have to pay more taxes, what will that do for the employment rate?

  • I was watching Hardball last night and this ad was shown and Andrea Mitchell was asked to comment on it. She said it was a lie. (Good for her!) But the conversation was more about the “tone” of the ad and not the substance so the fact that it was a lie never got mentioned again. Geez.

  • Chad, per the GAO businesses don’t pay taxes either. So you like being in favor of rich people at your own expense? Keep voting Republican.

    …and any time share prices drop they will lay you off anyway. And don’t forget that if labor is cheaper elsewhere, they will load their company up on a barge and ship it to whatever country has the cheapest labor. Vote for that too! Moron!

  • That’s a very good point Darren’s made at #10. It explains the McRovian lie-detractor strategy exactly: Smear with a falsehood >> Force the guy to respond to correct >> Capture his momentum and the initiative >> The lie defines the subsequent narrative >> Control the game. Dastardly, but clever (one has to admit).

  • McCain would rather lose his soul than lose an election. That, tragically, is a fact.

  • Why should Sen. Obama ever have to lie about McCain in a campaign ad? The truth about McCain is so much more damning. Now if only the corporate controlled media would actually report it, we’d be in business.

    I’m with Menthol at #5 about this whole “protecting our families” line that politicians like to feed us. I don’t have any children, and am paying taxes to subsidize other people’s kids. In a country with as craptastic an education system as ours, I’m being cheated. And until the federal government tells me I can legally marry my partner and qualify for 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities, including joint tax filing, well, that in itself shows me how little either side really cares about my family.

  • Nothing is stopping Obama from countering the ad. Why doesn’t he do that? -Chad

    Maybe he thinks Chris Wallace is doing a good enough job. When a Democrat has Wallace on their side, it’s a bad day for Republicans.

    They’re liable to lash out and make inane, angry comments on a blog.

  • TomB said:
    “I was watching Hardball last night and this ad was shown and Andrea Mitchell was asked to comment on it. She said it was a lie. (Good for her!) But the conversation was more about the “tone” of the ad and not the substance so the fact that it was a lie never got mentioned again. Geez.”

    I was watching as well & Tweety was his normal self. Tweety’s introduction was the ad and then a statement that ‘Why does McCain show a smiling Obama in this ad while DESTROYING HIM WITH THE FACTS’. As if the ad was true! That is when Mrs. Greenspan actually pointed out that the FACTS were lies! Totally out of character for her.

  • Chad-troll makes me miss Mary.

    I think political ads should be regulated more so than they are now. They do it with pharmaceuticals (no claims without important safety information, etc). All claims they make about their opponent should be referenced, maybe that would keep them (McSame) focused on himself.

  • Avi, I like your idea. McCain’s ads could end with a super-fast voice saying:

    “All statements attributed to Barack Obama have been presented out of context. Tax initiatives and other policies blamed on Barack Obama have been fabricated to represent an alternate reailty. All celebrities pictured have been done so without their consent and should in no way imply that they: a] support John McCain; b] are in any way having a sexual relationship with Barack Obama; c] are famous for any legitimate reason. Warning: Voting for John McCain may cause war-like symptoms that can continue for up to 100 years, including additional breakouts in Iran, North Korea, and Vietnam, goddamnit!; budget deficits that will effect your great-grandchildren; dry mouth; night sweats; bitter disappointment; disillusionment; short-sightedness; lameness; heartlessness; paranoia; hopelessness; suicidal tendencies; avarice; greed; mendacity; and [say it with me] anal leakage. Should any of these conditions persist, go to http://www.obama2008.com for a cure. If you experience an election that lasts longer that one day, call out the National Guard—Diebold is at it again.”

  • I wish Obama would do something! Just a simple ad saying that McCain & Co. are doing what Republicans are doing what they do best—lying—again, would be useful, especially during Olympics broadcasts where McCain’s nonsense appears frequently. Right now, this Kerry-like nonresponse is not good.

  • Chrenson, you missed erectial disfunction, not to mention electorial disfunction in 2010.

  • Lance: check the bottom. It says: “If you experience an election that lasts longer than one day, call out the National Guard—Diebold is at it again.”

    That’s as close as I could get.

  • why is it still possible for republicans to continuetheir farce..Just once I would like to see a campaign that is respectful of the other party without all this crap.

  • Comments are closed.